ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Deep learning reconstruction for detection of liver lesions at standard-dose and reduced-dose abdominal CT.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Transferability of radiomics models between deep learning and conventional CT reconstruction algorithms: A task-based assessment for stratifying acute pancreatitis severity.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDeep learning reconstruction (DLR) has shown promising image denoising ability, but its radiation dose reduction potential remains unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of DLR compared to iterative reconstruction (IR) in the detection of liver lesions at standard-dose and reduced-dose CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsParticipants with known liver metastases from gastrointestinal and pancreatic adenocarcinoma were prospectively included from routine follow-up (October 2020 to March 2022). Participants received standard-dose CT and two additional reduced-dose scans during the same contrast administration, each reconstructed with IR and high-strength DLR. Two radiologists evaluated images for the presence of liver lesions, and a third established a reference standard. Diagnostic performance was compared using McNemar's test and mixed effects logistic regression.
resultsForty-four participants (mean age 66 years ± 11 [standard deviation], 28 men) were evaluated with 348 included liver lesions ≤ 20 mm (297 metastases, 51 benign; mean size 9.1 ± 4.3 mm). Mean volume CT dose index was 14.2, 7.8 mGy, and 5.1 mGy. Between algorithms, no significant difference in lesion detection was observed within dose levels. Detection of 233 lesions ≤ 10 mm was deteriorated with lower dose levels despite DLR denoising, with 185 detected at standard-dose IR (79.4%; 95% CI: 73.5-84.3) vs 128 at medium-dose DLR (54.9%; 95% CI: 48.3-61.4; p < 0.001) and 105 at low-dose DLR (45.1%; 95% CI: 38.6-51.7; p < 0.001).
conclusionDiagnostic performance for liver lesion detection was comparable between algorithms. When the detection of smaller lesions is important, DLR did not facilitate substantial dose reduction. KEY POINTS: Question Methods to reduce CT radiation dose are desirable in clinical practice, and DLR has shown promising image denoising capabilities. Findings Liver lesion detection was comparable for DLR and IR across dose levels, but detection of smaller lesions deteriorated with lower dose levels. Clinical relevance Although potent in image noise reduction, the diagnostic performance of DLR is comparable to IR at standard-dose and reduced-dose CT. Care must be taken in pursuit of dose reduction when the detection and characterization of smaller liver lesions are of clinical importance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.